 |
 |
A couple of thoughts: 1) It takes a lot of effort to put these proposals together. Let's not lose sight that both proposals are good proposals, and that's why we have a vote. I'm sure there are various opinions on both proposals. 2) Separate from either proposal, I was struck this year by a greater diversity in topic areas for code4lib than I have observed in the past. There definitely felt like there was interest in tracks that were not as code-focused (such as culture / community, management, etc.). With the conference growing to the size it has, I personally feel it might be interesting to try a hybrid of single / multi-track, to allow those attending an opportunity to have the ability to have some additional focus on some theme areas. When we started code4lib, the size of the conference was such that a single track made a lot of sense; as the event has grown, both in size and maturity, I'd like to suggest that it may be worth exploring having both single track sessions and multi-track sessions to allow deeper dives by different segments of the attendees. Just my $.02 -- jaf ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Frumkin Assistant Dean / Chief Technology Strategist University of Arizona Libraries +1 520.626.7296 [log in to unmask] ------------------------------------------------------------ "A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new." - Albert Einstein On 2/23/15, 12:09 PM, "Riley Childs" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >I agree, the appeal of code4lib is the single track. > >Sent from my Windows Phone > >-- >Riley Childs >Senior >Charlotte United Christian Academy >Library Services Administrator >IT Services Administrator >(704) 537-0331x101 >(704) 497-2086 >rileychilds.net >@rowdychildren >I use Lync (select External Contact on any XMPP chat client) > >CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it are >the property of Charlotte United Christian Academy. This e-mail, and any >attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named >herein and may contain confidential information that is privileged and/or >exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not one of the >named original recipients or have received this e-mail in error, please >permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any >printout thereof. Thank you for your compliance. This email is also >subject to copyright. No part of it nor any attachments may be >reproduced, adapted, forwarded or transmitted without the written consent >of the copyright [log in to unmask] > >________________________________ >From: Collier, Aaron<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >Sent: ?2/?23/?2015 2:08 PM >To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location > >In conjunction with the "distributed location" pre-conferences AND >multi-track the proposal is not very appealing. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >Fox, Bobbi >Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:51 AM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for Code4lib 2016 location > >Is there wiggle room on the Philadelphia "multiple track" proposal, or do >those of us who would prefer single track only have the [not]choice of >voting for L.A.? > >Best regards, >Bobbi > > >> > On Feb 22, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Francis Kayiwa <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> > >> > Hey All, >> > >> > Just wanted to make everyone aware of the two fantastic proposals to >> host Code4lib 2016 that have been submitted. The cities of of Los >> Angeles and Philadelphia have submitted proposals which are now >> available at the official Code4lib Website >> > >> > http://code4lib.org/content/code4lib-2016-conference-proposals >> > >> > Voting will open tomorrow (UTC so probably already open if you are >> reading this) and will remain open until 2015-03-07 08:00:00 UTC >> > >> > You can vote here (registration required) >> > >> > http://vote.code4lib.org/election/37 >> > >> > Thanks to the both cities for their submissions. >> > >> > best regards, >> > Francis >> > >> > -- >> > FORTUNE PROVIDES QUESTIONS FOR THE GREAT ANSWERS: #13 >> > A: Doc, Happy, Bashful, Dopey, Sneezy, Sleepy, & Grumpy >> > Q: Who were the Democratic presidential candidates?